DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on December 06, 2008, 03:25:38 PM
-
"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html)
-
I think they are definately shooting themselves in the foot , but all the more reason to not censor them.
"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."
Begs a question doesn't it?
Is this recursive reasoning really reliable ?
Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?
-
If you need a definition of good you're in trouble already aren't you?
-
Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?
Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?
-
Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?
Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?
Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.
I have to plead ignorance on what is the definition for athiests , and I also don't know how they avoid being subjective and relitive about it.
-
If you need a definition of good you're in trouble already aren't you?
Do you consider "good " to be instinctively known?
-
>>Do you consider "good " to be instinctively known?<<
Basicly, yes. Not a long, highly evolved, definition, perhaps, but the day to day interpersonal stuff, yes.
-
Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?
As I recall, we bother to protect freedom of speech so that people can in fact "stir the pot". Regarding the "for hateful sake", to whom are you referring, the atheists or the folks who seek to have the sign removed?
-
Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.
So, you're only good because God told you to be good?
-
Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.
=========================================
God makes extremely rare personal appearances, and when he does, he does not hold question-answer sessions. I fail to see how you could define good unless God were a lot more forthcoming.
Socrates was not much of a believer, and one of his main topics was the definition of "the Good". He did not seem to require a Deity of Deities to reach a definition. Mostly, he used logic. Atheists today do the same thing. The main problem atheists seem to have today is that when atheists are called all sorts of names, they do not join one another in rebutting what is said about them.
-
Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.
So, you're only good because God told you to be good?
Yes , though I am not all that good.
Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .
-
Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .
Sad. No self control. Has to have a superior figure looking over his shoulder all the time, to make sure he doesn't do the wrong things.
-
Socrates was not much of a believer, and one of his main topics was the definition of "the Good". He did not seem to require a Deity of Deities to reach a definition. Mostly, he used logic. Atheists today do the same thing. The main problem atheists seem to have today is that when atheists are called all sorts of names, they do not join one another in rebutting what is said about them.
Ok use some logic to define some good ,try not to out run me though.
-
Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .
Sad. No self control. Has to have a superior figure looking over his shoulder all the time, to make sure he doesn't do the wrong things.
Right, I rely on instinct , so if I want it , it must be good , I am the final authority myself .
-
Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?
As I recall, we bother to protect freedom of speech so that people can in fact "stir the pot". Regarding the "for hateful sake", to whom are you referring, the atheists or the folks who seek to have the sign removed?
Well, basically, I read this as atheists who seem to want to share their anti-Christian (anti love for Christ) sentiments via a "protest board" along side another "board" which was also freedom of expression.
Sure, it's ok to express one's beliefs or non belief system. But, I find it suspect when the signs are placed near another "celebratory voice" of expression.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with expressing one's feelings, etc. But why didn't they put the sign near the mall .....or on the side walk.....or on their own front porch?
-
Atheist literally means without God.
It is being defined negatively , what is the positive side?
Humanist? To make Humanity the central theme ? Or can a Humanist also have God on his side?
Agnostic seems kinda nutral , I wonder if a militant agnostic could be found?
-
Atheist literally means without God.
It means "without theism".
-
Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?
Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?
Plane, of course an atheist can define "good". .....Goodness isn't the point here.
One's belief systems is the point. The resentment of a group people towards another group of people based on their belief system..... to be astonishing.
The atheist good. I have good friends who are atheists.
Why not just put up a sign in the front yard? Why not put the sign up in the mall to show the beauty of expression for expression sake? . ....(pun intended)
-
Atheist literally means without God.
It means "without theism".
Hm isn't that even worse?
-
Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?
Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?
Plane, of course an atheist can define "good". .....Goodness isn't the point here.
One's belief systems is the point. The resentment of a group people towards another group of people based on their belief system..... to be astonishing.
The atheist good. I have good friends who are atheists.
Why not just put up a sign in the front yard? Why not put the sign up in the mall to show the beauty of expression for expression sake? . ....(pun intended)
They are within their rights to state thir case in a civil manner , even on the side of a Bus.
Christians are in possession of the same right , so we should not squalk at it .
Once their case is stated , then their case is a point that can be discussed .
An athiest has to decide what is good , I have a Buddhist vothe for instinct and an professorial vote for logic , but I don't have the definition yet.
-
Hm isn't that even worse?
Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.
-
It seems that a basic belief of Christians is that if one does not believe in God, then God will dislike that person. I a not sure why this should be so. I see no reason why a person might simply conclude that God does not logically exist, based on the lack of a personal appearance by said Deity, or even an occasional deep voice coming from a bit of burning shrubbery.
A God that was omniscient should be able to understand why a man did not believe, based on the empirical evidence.
-
Hm isn't that even worse?
Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.
Frankly,I have yet to see a "theist" (i.e. believer) judge the Atheists as "worse". I have to say that there are some who do.
However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".
If a theist is a true theist there is no jump to judgement against any person--believer or non believer.
Yet, the atheist tends to outline a clear resentment against the believer. ...Thus the nature of the signs placed up against the believer.
I find that to be suspect. I find that to be anti in it's clearest form.
It's ok to believe one is not equal to the individual's core system. It's another to "protest" that belief out of resentment. Christians usually do not form the opinion of the latter.
btw,
I used the word hateful in my thread topic title...I meant to say resentful.
But, I believe that both can truly be hateful.....
An automobile driver can be calm, law obiding ...yet
An automible driver can also be a raging hell on wheels.
Choice is key....intent is even more to the point.
-
An athiest has to decide what is good , I have a Buddhist vothe for instinct and an professorial vote for logic , but I don't have the definition yet.
Well, you didn't get a "definition" because you didn't ask for one. You said, specifically:
can an athiest define good?
And the answer to that is, yes they can.
Here's a few discussions about it:
The concept of what's good or what is evil depends on social, cultural & religion dictates of the region. Example, stealing may be evil in some culture but not to others especially in times of famine. Genocide including slaughter of animals of those who do not believe in their god may be righteous to adherent of the Bible, but not to the Buddhist who teaches "Do not harm any sentient beings." Adultery may be evil to some, but not to a particular tribe in the Amazon jungle, where the wife can sleep with other men with the permission of the husband. Lying is not evil if it will produce good result. Most of us did white lies before.
God/s does not have a patent on what's good or Evil. If the gory practices in the Holy Scriptures are done today, surely, they have to answer to the Law of Humans.
The concept of what's good and evil also evolve with the times. Divorce in the ancient times are mostly allowed if the fault is with the women, not with men. Now it's both side.
Slavery is OK during the Biblical times until the time of Abraham Lincoln, but today, slavery is evil. Usury and putting interest on a loan is evil according to the New Testament, but now it's a common practice.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_define_good_and_evil (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_define_good_and_evil)
Society teaches us right from wrong and it both censors and censures us when we deviate too far. Moralistic humanists with no religious beliefs do good because we recognize and empathize with the suffering of other human beings and we wish to act to prevent it. When we do bad things, we are punished instantly by our own conscience. Surely behaving correctly because you believe that you are being watched constantly and will be judged later is neither truly altruistic nor truly moral.
http://www.helium.com/items/267047-good-without-god-secular-humanism-and-morality?page=2 (http://www.helium.com/items/267047-good-without-god-secular-humanism-and-morality?page=2)
Moreover, since self-interest is not an adequate basis for morality, there is reason to believe that heaven and hell cannot perform the regulative function often attributed to them. Heaven and hell are often construed as the carrot and stick that God uses to make us toe the line. Heaven is the reward that good people get for being good, and hell is the punishment that bad people get for being bad. But consider this. Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them.
Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html)
I can dig up plenty more if you're really interested. I don't think you are, since you didn't bother to look yourself...
-
However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".
You're reading more into my words than I put there. Obviously, an atheist prefers to live without theism, therefore for that person, "with theism" is worse. If it were not, they would not have chosen to be atheist.
-
However, the atheist, that holds little or no compassion for the theist, tends to do so with more "judgement"....e.g "being worse".
You're reading more into my words than I put there. Obviously, an atheist prefers to live without theism, therefore for that person, "with theism" is worse. If it were not, they would not have chosen to be atheist.
"worse" is a term I hate to hear....reminds me of that idiot on MSNBC....worse, worser and worsest.
What's his name?
Keith Oberman?
He's a joke.
-
Hm isn't that even worse?
Why would you think so? Atheists think that "with theism" is worse.
I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.
One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.
If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.
-
I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.
One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.
If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.
It's accepting pejorative descriptions, like black people calling themselves "niggers." "Atheist" was a term that was applied to them by theists, and they accepted it.
Besides, they generally call themselves "secular". They generally only refer to themselves as "atheist" when you ask them which of the many "gods" they believe in - and their answer is "none". The term arose during a period of state supported religion.
Using your example, what would be your response if you were asked "which European country do you live in"? Your answer would have to include a negative of some form. When you ask a person who does not believe in supernatural beings which of those he believes in, his answer would also have to include a negative.
-
I was talking about defineing oneself negatively.
One never hears an Italian say I am Non French.
If I were to tell you that I am non bald it would be a partial truth , but kind of strange to say it that way.
It's accepting pejorative descriptions, like black people calling themselves "niggers." "Atheist" was a term that was applied to them by theists, and they accepted it.
Besides, they generally call themselves "secular". They generally only refer to themselves as "atheist" when you ask them which of the many "gods" they believe in - and their answer is "none". The term arose during a period of state supported religion.
Using your example, what would be your response if you were asked "which European country do you live in"? Your answer would have to include a negative of some form. When you ask a person who does not believe in supernatural beings which of those he believes in, his answer would also have to include a negative.
Exactly so , named as if bereft of something you don't think we have either.
A question of my Euro-ness could be answered with an assertion of my American-ness.
But if asked if one were spritual could there be an assertive answer or is the negative preferable?
-
But if asked if one were spritual could there be an assertive answer or is the negative preferable?
Sure, then they use terms like "objective", "realist", "free thinkers", etc.
-
Atheist is no more negative a term than monotheist. The word monotheist indicates a belief in a but one god.
If atheists are happy being called atheists, I see no reason for them to invent a new name. It's just a classification, not really a religion, anyway.
Polytheists= believers in several gods. (there are a variety of polytheistic groups of gods)
Monotheists= believers in just one god (sort of) Allah, Elohim, God, the Trinity, etc.
Atheists = belief in no god or gods.
I don't think that atheists are more anti-theists than Christians, Jews Muslims, etc are anti-atheist. Anyone can be intolerant. Buddhists do not believe in a Creator Deity, and some believe in a large number of spirits, others in none at all.
-
Anyone can be intolerant.
This is true. But on average Christians pray for others, especially non-thesists, than theisist "pray" for Christians.
-
Well, basically, I read this as atheists who seem to want to share their anti-Christian (anti love for Christ) sentiments via a "protest board" along side another "board" which was also freedom of expression.
So you decided the sign was hateful because it disagreed with your religion?
Sure, it's ok to express one's beliefs or non belief system. But, I find it suspect when the signs are placed near another "celebratory voice" of expression.
So it's hateful/resentful for a person to directly contradict what he believes is wrong and possibly harmful?
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with expressing one's feelings, etc. But why didn't they put the sign near the mall .....or on the side walk.....or on their own front porch?
Why is the Nativity scene where it is? Why don't the Christians simply keep to expressing their faith on their front porch or their church? Why is the expression of religion at the Legislative Building okay, but not the expression of atheism?
-
Well, basically, I read this as atheists who seem to want to share their anti-Christian (anti love for Christ) sentiments via a "protest board" along side another "board" which was also freedom of expression.
So you decided the sign was hateful because it disagreed with your religion?
Sure, it's ok to express one's beliefs or non belief system. But, I find it suspect when the signs are placed near another "celebratory voice" of expression.
So it's hateful/resentful for a person to directly contradict what he believes is wrong and possibly harmful?
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with expressing one's feelings, etc. But why didn't they put the sign near the mall .....or on the side walk.....or on their own front porch?
Why is the Nativity scene where it is? Why don't the Christians simply keep to expressing their faith on their front porch or their church? Why is the expression of religion at the Legislative Building okay, but not the expression of atheism?
So it's hateful/resentful for a person to directly contradict what he believes is wrong and possibly harmful?[/
More like holding disdain than hate....but there are so many who hold hate in their hearts for Christians, Jews, Muslims.
I dont' see believing in a God as harmful. DO you?
You raise a good questions about the placement of the Nativity Scene.
-
Yet, the atheist tends to outline a clear resentment against the believer. ...Thus the nature of the signs placed up against the believer.
I find that to be suspect. I find that to be anti in it's clearest form.
It's ok to believe one is not equal to the individual's core system. It's another to "protest" that belief out of resentment. Christians usually do not form the opinion of the latter.
Christians preach against sin, secularism and godlessness. How is that fundamentally different from the message of the atheist sign that speaks against what the atheist believes to be detrimental to individuals and society? Why is the atheist message "resentful" and the Christian message against sin and godlessness not?
So it's hateful/resentful for a person to directly contradict what he believes is wrong and possibly harmful?
More like holding disdain than hate....but there are so many who hold hate in their hearts for Christians, Jews, Muslims.
I dont' see believing in a God as harmful. DO you?
No, I do not. But then, Pagans and Buddhists, generally speaking, do not really believe in sin. A bisexual pagan may not see anything harmful in premarital sex with more than one person at a time. Lots of Christians do. Is it disdainful or hateful for a Christian to say so? The bisexual pagan might think so. The Christian probably doesn't think so. You see the atheist sign as resentful, but the atheist does not.
-
Yet, the atheist tends to outline a clear resentment against the believer. ...Thus the nature of the signs placed up against the believer.
I find that to be suspect. I find that to be anti in it's clearest form.
It's ok to believe one is not equal to the individual's core system. It's another to "protest" that belief out of resentment. Christians usually do not form the opinion of the latter.
Christians preach against sin, secularism and godlessness. How is that fundamentally different from the message of the atheist sign that speaks against what the atheist believes to be detrimental to individuals and society? Why is the atheist message "resentful" and the Christian message against sin and godlessness not?
So it's hateful/resentful for a person to directly contradict what he believes is wrong and possibly harmful?
More like holding disdain than hate....but there are so many who hold hate in their hearts for Christians, Jews, Muslims.
I dont' see believing in a God as harmful. DO you?
No, I do not. But then, Pagans and Buddhists, generally speaking, do not really believe in sin. A bisexual pagan may not see anything harmful in premarital sex with more than one person at a time. Lots of Christians do. Is it disdainful or hateful for a Christian to say so? The bisexual pagan might think so. The Christian probably doesn't think so. You see the atheist sign as resentful, but the atheist does not.
I'll give you that. I don't know the heart of the atheists who placed the sign, but it rings of "protest", which rings of resentment, which rings a deaf bell ......why not post the sign on the winter solstice. Christians celebrate on the 24th and 25th, but they also celebrate the "season" for at least a month of Sundays in the Catholic church, anyway.
Christians preach against sin, secularism and godlessness. How is that fundamentally different from the message of the atheist sign that speaks against what the atheist believes to be detrimental to individuals and society? Why is the atheist message "resentful" and the Christian message against sin and godlessness not?
I don't agree with your "broad stroked" assessment that Christians preach AGAINST another. The Christians that I know certainly do not preach.
Ok --yes, Sin is something which is core to the Christian belief system, this is true. . . but those who believe in Jesus Christ focus more on love for one another, and the forgiveness of sin.
My sense is that many anti-Christians resent the idea of "sin".
Well then,they don't have to believe in sin. Period. Why bother? It's not something they should worry about.
I sense that atheists believe Christians to be arrogant, and judgemental......Not true if the person is a true Christian. The followers of Christ do not judge.
Bad apples in all bunches? I suppose so.
Then, who's to say that atheists are void of such judgement and resentment against Christians?
"Hateful" was my knee-jerk reaction, sure. Why? Because to place a sign against another person's religious belief has been hateful in the past....The Jews have endured such hatered for years.
I say this was more of a protest with a hint of resentment.
-
This is true. But on average Christians pray for others, especially non-thesists, than theisist "pray" for Christians.
==========================
If one does not believe in God, then how would praying to a God be a rational act?
Prayer to no one is sort of silly, isn't it?
.
I suppose an atheist can HOPE a Christian does well and enjoys good health and can wish him well.
Buddhists do not believe in sin as Christians do. The basis of the Buddhist religion is the Dharma, the Sangha and Karma. Dharma is the teachings of Buddha and other enlightened ones, who are not necessarily Buddhists. The Sangha is the community of Buddhists, those that carry the begging bowls and those who keep them filled among other acts. And Karma is the realization that whatever goes around, comes around: unwise, spiteful and unhealthy acts, excessiveness in all things, have consequences, perhaps in this life, perhaps in the next.
I don't think that Atheists and Agnostics have resentment against believers any more than people who hate anchovies resent anchovy lovers. Christians are supposed to try to convert non-Christians to Christianity. Atheists normally have no such duty. Madeline Murry O'Hare was a rare exception who enjoyed deliberately pissing Christians and other believers off for her own personal reasons. She was not at all typical, but she was assumed to be so because she was so damned loud.
As an Agnostic, I rarely get involved in discussions, because I see no use in trying to win anyone over to my point of view, You always get the same question "Don't you believe in ANYTHING?" Well, of course, I believe in lots of things, I just have not been able to believe in a three piece Deity who thinks using Roman soldiers to suicide himself could possibly affect my life 2000 years later.
I do not believe that repeating things I don't believe in, like various prayers, makes them in any way true. I cannot see h0w a collection of ancient folkways, rants and advice (ie the Bible) could be the work of any being or Being of superior intellect.
-
I don't know the heart of the atheists who placed the sign, but it rings of "protest", which rings of resentment, which rings a deaf bell
Why does protest necessarily imply resentment?
I don't agree with your "broad stroked" assessment that Christians preach AGAINST another. The Christians that I know certainly do not preach.
You don't know Christians who preach? They don't speak out against sin and godlessness? They don't claim Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin?
Ok --yes, Sin is something which is core to the Christian belief system, this is true. . . but those who believe in Jesus Christ focus more on love for one another, and the forgiveness of sin.
None of them speak against sinning? None of them speak of the importance of morality?
My sense is that many anti-Christians resent the idea of "sin".
Well then,they don't have to believe in sin. Period. Why bother? It's not something they should worry about.
It's not? What sort of Christianity do you practice that does not care about sin?
I sense that atheists believe Christians to be arrogant, and judgemental......Not true if the person is a true Christian. The followers of Christ do not judge.
Since when?
Then, who's to say that atheists are void of such judgement and resentment against Christians?
While you claim Christians are void of such judgment and resentment against atheists, I find that very difficult to believe. Considering all the "America is a Christian nation" assertions and the protestations against those who want to remove Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from government buildings and grounds, I am just not buying your argument. Or are you also claiming "true" Christians don't do that?
-
the thing about prayer on teh part of the atheist was a sort of joke..btw.
Well, thanks for your take on this, XO...Sorry to hear that you have written on the religion of Christianity.
Cindy
-
Well, thanks for your take on this, XO...Sorry to hear that you have written on the religion of Christianity.
Written off, perhaps.
I read the book, and much of it made no sense. Then I read it again with a concordance, and I understood what it said better, and it made even less sense. The more I read it, the less sense it made. Still, I think that in many ways it has improved civilization and culture over the years. The more a loving religion it is, the less barbaric its believers become. Many people appear to have a deep need for something other worldly and mysterious to believe in, but I am not one of them.
When I read Buddhist writings, the works of Lao-Tse and Taoist works, they make logical sense to me. Not that anyone claims that they were written by God or even divinely inspired, just written by unusually smart and illuminated people.
-
You don't know Christians who preach? They don't speak out against sin and godlessness? They don't claim Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin?
That’s not what you said originally. You said that Christians preach…broad stroking the sentiment of the Christian.
Christians preach against sin, secularism and godlessness.
Why does protest necessarily imply resentment?
I don’t see it as celebratory in scope. Why else would they place their "solstice joy" next to a Nativity scene. What's the point? Other than....rebellion.
None of them speak against sinning? None of them speak of the importance of morality?
All of the speak of the importance of morality. All Christians speak against sinning.
It's not? What sort of Christianity do you practice that does not care about sin?
I said those who are anti-Christians. Of course my practice of Christianity cares about sin. That is a given, UP.
Since when?
Since they do not judge others lest they be judged themselves.
While you claim Christians are void of such judgment and resentment against atheists, I find that very difficult to believe. Considering all the "America is a Christian nation" assertions and the protestations against those who want to remove Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from government buildings and grounds, I am just not buying your argument. Or are you also claiming "true" Christians don't do that?
Well, the Christians I know do not judge atheists. I tend to wonder if the atheist, however are judging my religion. I know a couple of atheists and we get into some arguments over this topic. I am always approached by them with much skeptisism and a desire to prove me wrong. . .as opposed to the other way around.
I would be glad to share in their winter joy, but I hear nothing of that. Instead, I have to listen to their anti-Christ rants (as you have put it)….SUre, all of which is freedom of speech and all of which is fine with me.
I never said all America is Christian nation. If you were to go to Utah, you would see more Mormons than non-Mormons. If you were to go to Arizona and New Mexico you would see more Navajo Native Americans than in the state of Nevada. Does that mean we should place our Christian signs or Nativity scenes in their front yards? Of course not. There is respect for one another now in this country. But I doubt the intentions of the Atheist when they erect a sign next to a Nativity Scene. ..that's all I am saying.
Are there more Christians in this country? I don’t know the stats. Ami might be able to dig those up…but my point is that when a majority of folks chose to celebrate a certain religion, be it Buddhism, or Judaism or whatever it is, you are bound to see more evidence of said “religious” icons etc in and around the neighborhood.
I agree that people should not be allowed to place remnants of their “religion” on the steps of any governmental building.
Considering all the "America is a Christian nation" assertions and the protestations against those who want to remove Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from government buildings and grounds, I am just not buying your argument. Or are you also claiming "true" Christians don't do that?
Are you saying that Christians want to shove the atheists out of the way? I am not saying that.
What you “consider” btw in your statement here is your opinion, UP.
All? Assertions? Against? All?
Hmmm, I find your own argument to be resentful, UP. Sorry, but I do. Perhaps you are quick to judge the Christians. And yes, I do know Christians and Jews and Muslims in my community who would not be quick to judge the atheists. Yes, I stand by my statement; True Christians do NOT judge.
Religion is a touchy subject, we all know this. I am questioning the intent of the atheists to take the time to share their “winter solstice” celebration. Why put it up next to a Christian Nativity Scene?
I find that to be a statement of protest, albeit not hateful. I retract that comment.
I find it to be reactionary/not celebratory.
Taking things to the highest court of law. We have that right. But I believe it to be more harmful for people to try to push things like Gay rights in our schools, for example. I do.
Another topic another day.
Ok, have a good week.
Later.
Cindy
-
Well, thanks for your take on this, XO...Sorry to hear that you have written on the religion of Christianity.
Written off, perhaps.
I read the book, and much of it made no sense. Then I read it again with a concordance, and I understood what it said better, and it made even less sense. The more I read it, the less sense it made. Still, I think that in many ways it has improved civilization and culture over the years. The more a loving religion it is, the less barbaric its believers become. Many people appear to have a deep need for something other worldly and mysterious to believe in, but I am not one of them.
When I read Buddhist writings, the works of Lao-Tse and Taoist works, they make logical sense to me. Not that anyone claims that they were written by God or even divinely inspired, just written by unusually smart and illuminated people.
Yes, my typo...written off.
I am tired.
Nite. more on this later.
Cindy
-
Atheist literally means without God.
It is being defined negatively , what is the positive side?
How is that negative?
It means "without theism".
Hm isn't that even worse?
Why should it be? In fact, why should it be bad at all? 'Splain, please.
-
This is true. But on average Christians pray for others, especially non-thesists, than theisist "pray" for Christians.
How should we pray? To whom, or what? The urn that holds my dog's ashes? A Coleman lantern? What? If your god does not exist to us, what should we pray to?
The followers of Christ do not judge.
That's a laugh.
Well, the Christians I know do not judge atheists. I tend to wonder if the atheist, however are judging my religion.
I'd just about bet every Christian who has met an atheist has thought to himself that here is a person who is going to hell because he does not believe in god. He may not say it out loud, but more than likely the thought is there. That, even if unspoken, is passing judgement.
As for the other way around, I could care less about your religion, as long as you don't try to push it on me. I've been where you are; I like where I am better.
-
I think people confuse atheists with antitheists.
-
Good deduction
-
Good Christians do not judge, perhaps, but some Christians obviously do. Prop 8 was an exercise in judging that the Christian definition of the word marriage was so much better than a more tolerant definition that would allow two gay people to get married in a CIVIL CEREMONY that it had to be enacted into law.
Paul said that good Christians had a duty to be missionaries, to spread the religion all over the place to those who are not Christian. The word "gospel" translates as "good news" The word GOOD is clearly a value judgment One does not catch Zoroastrians or Druses doing this, ever. They are happy just to induct only those born to fellow Zoroastrians or Druses into the faith.
I think Paul had a rather narrow view of the word "judge" which is more like our word "sentence". Christians clearly should believe that they have the best religion and therefore should spread it until everyone is a Christian. But they should not sentence people to Hell and damnation, even though they believe that God will do this, eventually.
Still, the word "best" is a value judgment.
Christians seem unaware that Jesus was not trying to found a new religion: he was a reformer of Judaism. Paul was the guy who transformed Christianity into an evangelical and missionary religion. Jesus only speaks to one Gentile in the entire New Testament, and says nothing to sad woman about joining his religion.
Think of Coca-Cola, which started life as a medicine with some very powerful ingredients (Kola nuts and Cocaine), brewed in a wooden vat behind some guy's home to a soft drink that was marketed to replace sarsaparilla and was not really marketable until ice and/or refrigeration was widely available.
-
And that would be a prime example of a bad deduction
-
And that would be a prime example of a bad deduction
============
Okay, why?
-
Start with a false premise....you can pretty much ignore the rest as well
-
This is true. But on average Christians pray for others, especially non-thesists, than theisist "pray" for Christians.
How should we pray? To whom, or what? The urn that holds my dog's ashes? A Coleman lantern? What? If your god does not exist to us, what should we pray to?
The followers of Christ do not judge.
That's a laugh.
Well, the Christians I know do not judge atheists. I tend to wonder if the atheist, however are judging my religion.
I'd just about bet every Christian who has met an atheist has thought to himself that here is a person who is going to hell because he does not believe in god. He may not say it out loud, but more than likely the thought is there. That, even if unspoken, is passing judgement.
As for the other way around, I could care less about your religion, as long as you don't try to push it on me. I've been where you are; I like where I am better.
You must have been burned by a few people in your life, HP.
I don't agree that it's a laugh at all.
Sorry to hear of your disdain.
-
Start with a false premise....you can pretty much ignore the rest as well
What false premise? That the word "good" is not the result of a value judgment?
-
Prop 8 was an exercise in judging that the Christian definition of the word marriage was so much better than a more tolerant definition
THAT was your false premise, since this issue has nothing to do with wanting to claim some "better definition". Most religions, including Christianity don't have a political correctness disclaimer attached, so it has zip to do with wanting a lesser PC definition than folks like yourself want. It has always been about not accepting what God clearly references as a sinful act, as somehow perfectly acceptable.
THUS the compromise, with Civil Unions. ALL the same rights, that folks like yourself CLAIM is the issue, but as you've clearly demonstrated, isn't the issue at all. It's all about mandating acceptance of a sinful act, upon all, by co-opting a term that has always been designated to that of a non-sinful act. THUS the no-compromise tact on your part
-
The word "sinful" is not applicable to civil government.
A civil single sex marriage is the province of the state, a civil entity. In civil society, thigs are illegal or legal.
The church may define marriage as it wishes. The church decides what is sinful or unsinful.
You are deliberately confusing the issue.
-
Naaaa, the confusion here was you trying to ride your false premise. Sorry, it ain't flying, regardless of how many deflection efforts you throw up
-
There is no false premise.
-
LOL........riiiiiiiiiight :D
-
What is the traditional Hindu, Muslim and Buddist definition of Marrage?
-
What is the traditional Hindu, Muslim and Buddist definition of Marrage?
Muslims can have up to four wives, but they must treat them all equally.
Hindus can also be polygamous. Buddhists generally have one wife and one or more concubines if they can support them.
But these are RELIGIOUS ideas, and the issue before the law is CIVIL marriages, which is not the same thing.
-
Taking Marriage Private
By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Olympia, Wash.
WHY do people ? gay or straight ? need the state?s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn?t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents? agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple?s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows ? even out alone by the haystack ? the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a ?licit? marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, ?mulattos,? Japanese, Chinese, Indians, ?Mongolians,? ?Malays? or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a ?mental defect.? Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.
In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were ?fit? to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.
But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors? benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees? dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.
In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married. Cohabitation and single parenthood by choice were very rare.
Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people?s interpersonal responsibilities. Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America?s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.
Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.
As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor?s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn?t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner?s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep ? who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor?s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn?t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.
Perhaps it?s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem ?licit.? But let couples ? gay or straight ? decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, is the author of ?Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)
-
Controversy
Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license. Most would object to a birth license, as it would imply that people must gain permission to be born. Following that same logic, many refuse to accept a marriage license and exercise their right to marry, without obtaining permission from the state.[1]
Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage licence is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[2] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required.[3]
In 1993, parents in Wisconsin became upset, because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools, which was very invasive of the family?s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats, who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test, because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates."[4] Judicially and in increasing fashion, practically, a state marriage license has far-reaching implications.
In the United States, until the mid-nineteenth century, common-law marriages were recognised as valid, but thereafter the states began to invalidate common-law marriages. At present eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages. (See Common-law marriage in the United States.) Common-law marriages, if recognised, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license)
What is interesting is that Loving vs Virginia (which declared interacial marriages legal) declared marriage a right. Seems like a conflict. Perhaps requiring marriage licenses or issuing them is unconstitutional.
-
Atheist is no more negative a term than monotheist. The word monotheist indicates a belief in a but one god.
If atheists are happy being called atheists, I see no reason for them to invent a new name. It's just a classification, not really a religion, anyway.
Polytheists= believers in several gods. (there are a variety of polytheistic groups of gods)
Monotheists= believers in just one god (sort of) Allah, Elohim, God, the Trinity, etc.
Atheists = belief in no god or gods.
I don't think that atheists are more anti-theists than Christians, Jews Muslims, etc are anti-atheist. Anyone can be intolerant. Buddhists do not believe in a Creator Deity, and some believe in a large number of spirits, others in none at all.
If atheists are happy being called atheists, I see no reason for them to invent a new name. It's just a classification, not really a religion, anyway.
I wonder sometimes why the person who does not believe in any sort of religion would be interested in any sort of "label" at all.
I have lived my life as a New Ager, as a candidate for spiritual advancement into the rhelm of peace on earth, by attending Shaman rituals in Taos NM. I have dabbled in Buddhism.( I enjoyed the peace of meditation and the beauty of centering oneself to an inner place with the world, I might add).
Heck, I was once married to a Moslem.....prayed each and every morning with my husband. I have dabbled in Sufism (Iraqi) Another beautiful healthy place to visit. Drumming, belly dancing, eating healthy and poetry.....awesome summer of '87.
... I have attended Messianic Jewish services with good friends who are Jews for Jesus.....I have best friends who are Jewish, have attended services with them in Arizona at Temple.
I've witnessed others pray to Goddesses in Volcanos in Maui ( New Age experience).
I have memorized the entire I-Ching during this period of my life. If I wanted to I could caste an I-ching for any one of you. Not quite the Tarot Cards idea, but a very enlightening advice giving venue, indeed.
But, all in all, I have taken this journey ----and, in the end come to find out that I have come full circle back to Christ through my journey(which started in 1970-1992 when I joined the Catholic Church.) Yes, I was one of those who fell in love with the Mass of the Catholic Church at age 17.
Heck, I even studied the Mormon in High School for a while as my best friend growing up was Mormon.
I was criticized once for dabbling too much in "other areas of the world of spirit"...but, I must say that the only real beauty in my life and the only REAL, REAL peace in my heart has come through prayer to Jesus Christ. (as a Catholic).
I do not have a negative attitude towards those who do not believe in Christ..nor do I hold disdain for other religions. . . . or non religious folks.
I have just "realized"..not necessarily "found" that Christ is real for me. I wish to explore His Love and Word more in my later years.
My journey in this world has taken on a world of interesting pathways and varied choices.
My best friends in this life who are Jewish (the wife was once a nun and is now a bi-sexual, he is a Child Psychologist. They live in Ar. He counsels children and now Iraqi war vets). YEp...they are my "Best Friends". They hold such acceptance for me that it's the essence of what friendship means........and have been like family to me for over 35 years.
The thought that they are so far away from my reality as a religious human being makes me wonder about others in this world....how much we could reach out to be even more complete. What a capacity for love. What we could do if we all held more acceptance. So very vital and necessary. I don't believe we have that in our world today.
While I agree that all relgions have intolerance, I do not believe it is acceptable to broad stroke or criticize another person's religion "just because" of non acceptance.
I believe the original posters of that sign did just that.
Protesting...not accepting.
If you were to ask them why they did it, you would find that they have little tolerance for Christians in this life.
I was hoping to hear that all they wanted was to share the JOY in their heart for the Winter Solstice celebration. I know all about such celebrations. Were they trying to show their JOY? I have my doubts.
My doubts were set in motion.......I question their intentions.
Protest equals resentment sometimes......I see no real value in rebelling against another's time of JOY.